Introduction to a Notable New Jersey Criminal Procedure Case

On January 14, 2025, the Appellate Division decided State v. Reyes-Rodriguez, ___N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2025). This case addressed critical issues in New Jersey criminal procedure, including the propriety of bench warrants, virtual appearances, and defendants’ rights in hybrid court proceedings. The ruling provides valuable insights into how New Jersey courts balance procedural fairness with practical challenges like immigration enforcement.

Facts and Procedural History in New Jersey Criminal Procedure

The defendant Jesus E. Reyes-Rodriguez, a Mexican national and non-citizen of the United States, faced charges of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child and fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. After his indictment in 2021, the defendant was detained by immigration authorities and deported to Mexico. The State did not seek to detain him before his removal and declined to extradite him after his removal to Mexico. Despite his removal, the defendant appeared remotely for all but one of his court appearances,  

However, the trial court subsequently issued a bench warrant for the defendant’s failure to appear in person at a “discretionary” pretrial conference. The defendant subsequently sought to vacate the warrant, dismiss the indictment, and, in the alternative to appear virtually for his trial. These requests were initially denied by the trial court.

The Bench Warrant and Dismissal of the Indictment

The Appellate Division reviewed the issuance of the bench warrant, a pivotal element in New Jersey criminal procedure. The court concluded the warrant was improperly issued. The defendant’s failure to appear in person was not willful but instead the result of his deportation, which made his in-person attendance physically impossible.

The appellate court declined to dismiss the indictment, reasoning that most delays in the case stemmed from the defendant’s actions, such as his applications for pretrial intervention (PTI). Additionally, the appellate court, applying the factors set forth in in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 (1972), as adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Szima, 70 N.J. 196, 200-01  (1976), found no excessive delay in prosecution that would violate the defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

Virtual Court Appearance in New Jersey Criminal Procedure

The Appellate Division also addressed whether the defendant should be allowed to appear virtually at trial. Citing the NJ Court Rules that govern the use of remote testimony and the Supreme Court’s Virtual Court Events Order, the appellate court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to permit the defendant to appear remotely. The decision reflects the evolving landscape of New Jersey criminal procedure, where courts strive to maintain fairness and accessibility despite logistical challenges.

Key Takeaways on New Jersey Criminal Procedure

This decision underscores several important aspects of New Jersey criminal procedure:

  1. Courts must carefully consider the circumstances behind a defendant’s inability to appear in person before issuing a bench warrant.
  2. Virtual participation is a viable solution when in-person attendance is impractical or impossible.
  3. The balance between the defendants’ rights and procedural efficiency remains central to judicial fairness.

By allowing the defendant to proceed virtually, the court ensured his right to a fair trial while respecting the victim’s rights under the Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights.

Conclusion: Insights into New Jersey Criminal Procedure

The Appellate Division’s decision in State v. Reyes-Rodriguez illustrates the dynamic nature of New Jersey criminal procedure. It highlights the judiciary’s willingness to adapt to modern challenges, such as remote participation, while ensuring fairness and upholding legal standards. This case serves as a benchmark for future cases involving similar procedural complexities.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.